highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Concur with not hijacking the thread to talk about engines. I will just say that all of the major brands have engines MILES ahead of the now ancient P-60, and the differences between those brands is fairly small. Just be sure to pick an engine that's light so as to avoid additional nose weight.

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Duplicate post

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Thats interesting, he badmouths mine, then gets one of his own? Hmm

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

Jannica, my last post speaks of my friend who has a P-120 mounted on his. It did take some minor mods to the mounting area. The thing is that the residual thrust on landing makes it harder to bleed off any speed.

Mike06659

Mine flew great with an old RAM 500 rated at 12.2lbs of thrust. Clocked at a 168mph. Loved that jet!!!!
Mike

oliveDrab

There was a guy, responded to this thread I believe, who mounted a Jetsmunt VT-80 and he was very happy with it.

Mike06659

I would probably sell your P-80 on RCU and get the recommended turbine size. I had to add nose weight with my little old RAM 500.
Mike

Ken Park

My Feedback: (1)

Just started my build - Located the bevelled 36" and 12" spruce bottom spars - I marked the ends with yellow highlighter to keep them from getting mixed up - Would be easy to do as the bevel is so slight - I had to really look hard

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

To me discussing turbines for the Reaction is not hijacking this thread at all.

The top pic is mine, that is a P70 in it. Bruce did reluctantly approve the P70s after a lot of people put them in with no issues other than size and weight. As was mentioned, with a P80 you may have difficulty slowing down for landing with the higher residual thrust of the bigger turbine. Instead of lead in the nose I used bigger batteries. I have 5000mAh on the RX, and the ECU and a 2400 nicad pack for the lights and smoke. With those 3 packs the bigger engine balanced with just 2 oz of nose weight, and I can get many flights before needing a charge.

I know that there have been both bigger and smaller Reactions built.

highhorse

My Feedback: (2)

Jeff, the hijacking comments were meant to keep the thread from devolving into a discussion/argument regarding brands etc. As I said in my own post, just select a lighter engine to avoid add'l nose weight ;-)

Jannica

Thanks for all your inputs and advice, guys! I guess that’s the biggest inconvenience with a P-80 in this airframe would be the rearward C/G and there is of course a cure for that if necessary. Otherwise an alternative model for my engine could maybe be the Ziroli Turbinator. But I still think it would be cool to build a large Super Reaction. Time will tell.

Jannica

Thanks for all your inputs and advice, guys! I guess that’s the biggest inconvenience with a P-80 in this airframe would be the rearward C/G and there is of course a cure for that if necessary. Otherwise an alternative model for my engine could maybe be the Ziroli Turbinator. But I still think it would be cool to build a large Super Reaction. Time will tell.

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Jannica, Sorry, no plans to kit a Super Reaction. Dave Rigotti built a 120% version and called it the Over Reaction. But he did that all on his own with no input from BTE. As for using a P80... yeah, weight is a problem. So is physical size. There is only so much room between the top of the wing and the bottom of the tail boom. You could hack away a portion of the wing, I guess, and it seems to me somebody did that long ago.

Okay, I just took a moment to check out my RCU Thread Index (on my website) and found this link to info on a P80 installation.

So bottom line, I'm not in love with the R54/P80 combo, but it can be done with modifications and some lead in the nose.

Jannica

Thanks for your answer Bruce. I really appreciate that you took your time. I guess that you have your reasons to keep the Reaction as it is and I respect that. My friend has built one and I think it is a beautiful model.
I checked up on Dave Rigottis Over Reaction and found a video of it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2pxpi1MgVs
It seems to fly OK but I think it lacks the elegance of your original design. He must have tampered with the proportions somehow. But the name was funny. I am convinced now and I don´t think I am going down the Reaction 54 / P-80 road.

Jannica

lhatton

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Guys,

Had a question I thought I'd post to keep us on the RCU Heartbeat

I finalized my inlet shape today and had the left one 70% tacked on when I got to thinking about finishing this area and knocked it all loose.
I'm set up to glass it and am now thinking about glassing the basic fuse first and then adding the inlets. I've done some glassing before, but never had to dress an interior surface.

I thought about pre glassing/painting the interior of the inlet sheeting, or leaving the bottom open in sections to just epoxy coat and then paint. Not real sure yet.

Any ideas? Did any of you inlet owners paint/cover/glass the interior?

Les

Did I mention this airframe is looking great! Thinking about this paint.

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

The P-80 is perfect for a Turbinator. It flies a lot like a Reaction I have both and like them equally for flying. The Reaction is a little faster but not by much and is a little easier to build due to the sheet balsa fin and stab. You will enjoy either one, IMHO they are two of the best all wood sport jets.

Scott Todd

Backing up what Ron says, I think you'll be quite pleased with the Reaction and P-80. The Turbinator was designed for one of the 60 class motors but most people put 80's in them. The Reactions at AZ jets last month flew great! We flew both these Turbinators yesterday. The full size one has a P-80 and the 83% one has a Ram 500. They both carry 4 batteries and lead in nose. Big one has 2 lbs of lead and weigs in at 23 lbs dry. The little one has 1 lb of lead and weighs 15 lbs dry. Lighter is always better but the right balance is more important. Whatever weight you add to make the 54 balance with the P-80 will be fine. BTW, the kitfox belongs to a friend. I have instructed in it

Helijet

Hi Guys

To date I have flown 5 different Reactions powered from by the RAM 500, PST 600R, P70, P80 and Wren 54. I have honestly put hundreds of flights on the Reaction model. My favorite by far was my first, which was powered by a 13 lb engine. I could throttle up and pull that 17 lb airframe easily off any runway surface. I could fly it at walking speeds, land virtually across the runway in extreme crosswinds, hover it in a 15 kt headwind and spot land it on a dime. Now I did not have the forever vertical but that was the ONLY thing it lacked. Build it simple, light and don't think you have to over power it. It my opinion it ruins the soul of the design.

Happy landings
Dean W.

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

I have built three reactions two were built as the plan, the third was glassed all over and painted. It had an 18 pound Wren supersport. The monocote covered reactions flew the best. As Dean said it would fly at walking speed and land on a 20 cent piece, I have just got a kit from bruce and it will have monocote covering, wire struts and a wren Jubilee 80, (about the same power as a Supersport. I am sorry guys but an overweight overpowered Reaction is not for me. And I fly from grass.

Regards

Tom Watson
Sydney Australia

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Les, that's a very striking color scheme. Haven't seen that before. Hope you do it!

lumpy649

My Feedback: (75)

I'm currently in the process of building a Reaction. I was thinking of glassing/painting the airframe mainly for the durability in preventing hangar rash while transporting and handling. After reading some pervious posts on glassing/paint and it's weight concerns, I'm curious as to how much weight the glass process adds versus monocote/solartex. I was planning on using 1/2 oz glass cloth and as minimal amount of epoxy as possible. For power , I'm going to be using a Jet Central Bee II
Thanks,
Gary

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

I have done glass and paint for almost as light as Monokote (about 1/4 oz per square foot of surface area). You have to be really careful, do a lot of sanding, and most importantly, do a light weight paint job. Most primers are HEAVY.

I think the lightest good quality paint now is a good polyurethane base coat/clear coat combo. The paint goes on really thin with good coverage. (matt base coats cover better than gloss base coats).

The thing about film covering is that you KNOW what the weight is going to be. Paint can be light or REALLY heavy.. there is almost no upper limit to how heavy it can get. ;-)

Bob

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

I have one in my R54, and am quite happy with it. Simple to install (everything is internal but the fuel pump and battery and optional data terminal), runs really well, light and low fuel consumption.

My R54 is about 21 lbs dry (shoulda used balsa instead of ply for the inlets and nacelle, has a scale cockpit etc etc). I get GPS speeds of about 190 mph out of a dive, and have done vertical pull-ups that gained about 1800 ft (from GPS).

Bob Parks

bobparks2

My Feedback: (1)

I did tip lights, "rotating beacon" lights top and bottom and a landing light in the nose. The beacons look good on the ground. Everything else is hardly noticeable during the day.

OTOH, I have a Xicoy LED "after burner" ring… thats TOTALLY worth it!

Bob

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Gary,
I have built three Reactions. The first two were covered in monocote and weighed about 18 pounds. The last one was glassed and painted. Epoxy primer, then clear over acrylic. It weighed about 21.5 pounds. I could not really tell the difference, but the glass one looked a lot better and did not get as damaged with transport. at least you don't have to worry about getting fuel under the monocote I am building another one just now and my plan is to glass the fuse, and cover the stab, fin and wings with monocote. Electric retracts, wire struts. The glass and paint on the wings seem to be the big reason for added weight.
Regards